Project
Photo: UNFCCCMonitoring the UN Climate Negotiations
As changes in climate become more extreme, their affects are being hardest felt throughout developing countries. Since 1994, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has laid out actions to limit the increase of global average temperatures and confront the impacts of climate change.
The States that are Parties to the Convention meet every year in the so-called Conference of the Parties (COP) to review their commitments, the progress made in fulfilling them, and pending challenges in the global fight against the climate crisis.
At COP21 in 2015, they adopted the Paris Agreement, which seeks to strengthen the global response to the climate emergency, establishing a common framework for all countries to work on the basis of their capacities and through the presentation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) that will:
- Limit the increase in global temperatures to 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels and continue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C;
- Increase the capacity of countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change; and
- Ensure that financing responds to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Our focus areas
THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
The climate crisis, due to its transversal character, has repercussions in various fields, geographies, contexts and people. In this regard, the Preamble to the Paris Agreement states that it is the obligation of States to "respect, promote and fulfill their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, the empowerment of women and intergenerational equity."
AIDA at the COP
COP25: Chile-Madrid 2019
At COP25 in Madrid, Spain, we advocated for the inclusion of the human rights perspective in various agenda items. We promoted the incorporation of broad socio-environmental safeguards in the regulation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which refers to carbon markets. We closely followed the adoption of the Gender Action Plan, as well as the Santiago Network, created "to catalyze technical assistance […] in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse affects of climate change." We also encouraged the inclusion of ambitious and measurable targets for the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants in the climate commitments of States.
Related projects
U.S. Congress Conditions: Spraying in National Parks
Astrid Puentes, AIDA (510) 550-6753 [email protected] Gastón Chillier, WOLA (202) 797-2171 [email protected] US CONGRESS CONDITIONS ANTI-NARCOTICS SPRAYING IN COLOMBIAN NATIONAL PARKS OAKLAND, CA, DECEMBER 10, 2003 — For the first time, the US Congress has officially acknowledged that US funds for the “Plan Colombia” drug eradication program may be used to spray coca and poppy crops located in Colombian national parks and other natural protected areas. However, the Congress conditioned funding for such spraying on compliance with Colombian law and a determination by the Department of State that “there are no effective alternatives to reduce drug cultivation in these areas.” The decision is part of the 2004 appropriations bill for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, a key element of the US “War on Drugs” in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. The authors of the bill that will be voted in January of 2004, agreed that while there is concern that coca growers are moving into Colombia’s national parks, aerial fumigation in the parks and reserves should be used only as a last resort. Instead, Congress favors alternatives such as manual eradication, training and equipping the police to protect the parks, and relocating families that have moved into these areas. “The policy of using aerial spraying to eradicate illicit crops poses significant threats to human health and the environment,” says Astrid Puentes, Legal Director for AIDA. She adds that “The conditions imposed by the US Congress are a step in the right direction, though to truly protect the environment in Colombia we must ensure that the eradication forces begin complying with Colombian laws and stop trying to weaken them.” Each year, Congress has conditioned the State Department’s use of funds for the spraying program on actions intended to help protect human rights and the environment. As in previous years, the Congress required that in 2004 the State Department certify that: the use of these herbicides in Colombia does not pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment; the eradication program complies with the Colombian Environmental Management Plan; and the governments investigate and fairly compensate meritorious complaints about health harms and the destruction of legal crops. For the first time, however, the Congress also referred to and conditioned the spraying of national parks and reserves. In 2001, Colombia’s environmental authorities specifically excluded national parks and natural reserves from the regions that are subject to aerial herbicide spraying. Instead, they ordered that manual or mechanical means be used to destroy coca and poppy crops in these areas. The authorities also prohibited the spraying of significant buffer areas surrounding the parks to avoid harms from spray drift or accidental spraying. These special protections are in line with the Colombian Constitution and environmental laws that establish special protections for these environmentally sensitive areas. Therefore, spraying in natural parks and natural reserves in Colombia is clearly illegal. Nevertheless, the Colombian National Anti-narcotics Agency that collaborates closely with the US Department of State has sprayed in Colombia’s national parks. Moreover, in June 2003, the Colombian National Council on Narcotics attempted to legalize such spraying. This action is being contested in Colombian courts for violating the Constitution and other laws. According to Anna Cederstav, a scientist with AIDA, “A policy that creates no viable economic alternatives for farmers simply perpetuates the cycle of farmers cutting forests to plant coca and the government spraying herbicides to destroy the fields. The US and Colombian governments should make a good-faith effort and give manual eradication and alternative development projects a chance to work, instead of relying on massive aerial spraying and military campaigns to destroy the crops.” She adds that “As the US Congress has now recognized for the National Parks, spraying should be the last recourse, but unfortunately it is the only one that has been systematically implemented until now.” The extensive spraying of potent herbicides could have devastating environmental impacts in the National Parks of Colombia, one of the most biodiverse nations on the planet. Important regions of the Amazon basin, the Tropical Andes, and the Chocó coastal rainforest are all located in Colombia. These vital ecosystems are being destroyed not only by illicit drug cultivation, but now also by the eradication program.
Read more
Colombian Court Orders the Suspension of Plan Colombia Spraying
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 26, 2003 CITING RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT, COLOMBIAN COURT ORDERS THE SUSPENSION OF THE US-FINANCED SPRAYING OF COCA AND POPPY CROPS OAKLAND, CA/BOGOTA, COLOMBIA – A recent decision by the Superior Administrative Court of Cundinamarca, Colombia, (released to the public on June 25) declared that the aerial spraying with herbicides to eradicate coca and poppy crops violates the Colombian constitutional rights to a healthy environment, security and public health. As a result, the court ordered that the aerial spraying of potent glyphosate herbicides be suspended until the government complies with the Environmental Management Plan for the eradication program, and conducts a series of required studies intended to protect human health and the environment. This verdict supplements earlier declarations by the Colombian Constitutional Court and the State Council, which respectively ordered the suspension of spraying in indigenous territories and full compliance with the Environmental Management Plan approved by the Ministry of Environment. According to Yamile Salinas of the Colombian Ombudsman’s Office, “This ruling recognizes the potential risks that the herbicide and the manner in which it is being applied pose to human health and the environment in Colombia,” She added that, “The application of the precautionary principle is of singular importance because the Court affirms that the significant and potentially irreparable risk posed by the spraying is reason enough to suspend the fumigation program.” “The US Congress has required the State Department to evaluate environmental and health impacts of Plan Colombia. This decision by a court in Colombia must be taken into account by the US State Department,” said Anna Cederstav, staff scientist with Earthjustice and AIDA. “In light of the evidence presented and the court’s clear decision on this matter, the Department of State cannot certify to Congress that the herbicide mixture, in the manner it is being used, poses no unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment, or that the herbicide is being used in compliance with the Environmental Management Plan for the program.” She concluded that, “It would be highly irresponsible for the United States to continue the eradication program in contravention of the Colombian court order to suspend the spraying until appropriate public health and environmental protections are in place.” “This court order formally adopts many of the requirements for environmental and human protection that the Colombian Ombudsman and Comptroller General, along with both national and international non-government organizations, have been demanding for years,” said Yamile Salinas. “This decision is a victory for both public health and the environment of Colombia.” Press Contacts: Anna Cederstav, Staff Scientist with Earthjustice and AIDA, (Oakland, CA) tel. 510-550-6700 Yamile Salinas, Colombian Ombudsman’s Office, (Bogotá, Colombia) tel. 571-314-7300 Ext. 2324
Read more
La Oroya Cannot Wait
This publication is the product of a careful analysis of official environmental monitoring reports submitted for the Doe Run multi-metal smelter to the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines between 1996 and 2001. By finally filling the void in public information about contamination levels in La Oroya, this work demonstrates that the right to access information is an essential pillar of citizen participation. Only with these type of facts in hand can civil society protect itself against the powerful interests of giant mining companies like Doe Run. The reader will come to understand the severe health problems and risks suffered by the local population and particulary the children in La Oroya. But the authors go beyond this. They suggest the implementation of corrective and preventive measures that will require the participation of not only the company but also the Peruvian State. These are actions that cannot be postponed if we are to guarantee the human right to health, improve quality of life, and permit development in Peru. The authors also provide a legal analysis of environmental protection in the minerals sector, and recommendations for making this system more effective. Above all, this publication is an invitation to take meaningful and timely steps toward solving the extraordinary environmental and human health problems in La Oroya. Read and download the publication
Read more